Additional Endorsements for Douglas Arthur Tuma

Candidate for
United States Representative; District 5

Steve Watanabe - Secretary, Libertarian Party of Sacramento County

David Long Henderson - Editor, Sacramento Liberty Link

Gerald Klaas - State Senate Dist. 6 candidate

Mike McHale - Producer, The Libertarian Conspiracy cable show

Fraudulent Federal Environmental Protection Hurts Humanity (continued from Biography)

Gift horse: immediate gratification: greedy opportunists

I say that those who express outrage over drainage infrastructure to support efficient and reliable human food and fiber production, built on a desert salt sink to hold drain water that would improve in quality over time, because it could not immediately gratify their demand for waterfowl breeding are not just looking a gift horse in the mouth. They are just plain greedy opportunists, emulating wildlife. Maybe that's the only behavior they know because they've only studied wildlife behavior.

Natural behavior: private property rights: drainage

But wildlife behavior also includes protection of territorial claims. And those species whose members honor each other's claims prosper in peaceful co-existence. Those who don't honor each other's claims live lives of violent conflict. Respect for private property rights is a natural path to peaceful prosperity.

Drainage is natural for all life, wild and human. Drainage for farms can not be stopped without drowning the roots of field crops and/or killing the crops with accumulated salt. The government's taking of drainage rights from farms without just compensation was a violation of private property rights of owners who chose to farm their land.

The farm drain water from the San Luis Unit was a third of the salinity of sea water, not good for fresh water uses. This is why the San Luis Drain was designed to convey the drain water all the way to the mouth of the combined San Joaquin River and Sacramento River Delta where it could be released into Suisun Bay sea water without degrading the receiving environment.

Suisun Bay: tragedy of the commons

Because Suisun Bay sea water is unowned, no owner can sue for damages from alleged environmental degradation. No owner can decide and contract with drain dischargers the limits of allowable impacts on Suisun Bay. It is a commons, fated to suffer Garrett Hardin's "tragedy of the commons".

A multitude of Suisun Bay, San Pablo Bay, San Francisco Bay, and Delta water users fight over common resources. Some have traded their votes to Rep. Miller in return for protection from San Joaquin Valley drainage. Rep. Miller traded his vote to other congressmen for authorization of water projects in their states in return for their votes for CVPIA authorization. This has been the crowning glory of his 24 year congressional career. Not only has he stopped the San Luis Drain completion, he got congress to raid CVP water from farms which could potentially drain into the heart of his district ‹ Suisun Bay.

Suisun Bay may be the heart of Rep. Millerıs district, but it is the natural urethra of the Central Valley. Rep. Miller may have squeezed a political sphincter on San Joaquin Valley farm drainage, but nothing will stop the natural geomorphic process of sediment transport and deposition by floodwater. Suisun Bay and the rest of the Bay-Delta estuary will continue to accumulate selenium rich sediments from the San Joaquin Valley, whether it is farmed or not. Rep. Miller has done nothing more than pander the federal governmentıs monopoly on legitimate violence to EPPA lust for industrial sabatoge.

But Rep. Miller could not do this on his own. He had lots of help. Democrat congressmen and senators. And Republican representatives in other states who could care less if Californians choose to practice self abuse. This perpetual political fight over conflicting uses consumes human effort and conceals the best values of property from being revealed in a free market. Everybody loses.

Kesterson reservoir: primary purposes

In the absence of private ownership with which to contract for the terms of drain discharge, federal planners aimed to minimize impacts. They anticipated times when Delta out flow might not be enough to adequately flush nutrients carried by the drain water from feeding algal blooms in Suisun Bay. Then the drain water flow could be held temporarily in Kesterson Reservoir. It would be the San Luis Drain's bladder, holding the drain water to minimize impacts on others.

Conditional access: wildlife management

How did Kesterson Reservoir become Kesterson "National Wildlife Refuge"? Reclamation agreed to let the Service ­ then called the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (Bureau) ­ manage what wildlife resources could be found on the Kesterson Reservoir property without interfering with the primary purposes (operation of San Luis Drain). This condition of Service access to Kesterson Reservoir was clearly documented in a cooperative agreement (US Contract No 14­06­200­4674A, July 23, 1970).

"WHEREAS, the United States, through Reclamation, has acquired certain lands in fee for the construction and operation of the Kesterson Reservoir for the primary purposes of operating San Luis Drain, a feature of the San Luis Unit of the Central Valley Project, California, under the authority of the Act of June 3, 1960, P.L. 86­488 (74 Stat. 156);"

"1. Subject to the terms, conditions, limitations, exceptions and reservations contained herein, Reclamation hereby transfers to the Bureau, and the Bureau hereby accepts responsibility for the conservation and management of wildlife including any associated recreation aspects thereof of the Kesterson Reservoir area including its water surface, ..."

" RECLAMATION USE PARAMOUNT

6. The use of the land and water areas for wildlife conservation and management shall be subject at all times to occupation and use by Reclamation for all primary purposes of the project. Reclamation shall give notice as early as possible to the Bureau prior to conducting any activities on the premises covered by this Agreement which may substantially affect the wildlife conservation and management program."

" TERMINATIONS

11. This agreement may be relinquished by the Bureau at any time by giving to Reclamation notice in writing one year in advance. In the event of failure of the Bureau to observe any of the provisions set out in the Cooperative Agreement, Reclamation will so notify the Bureau of the particular violation and the Bureau shall immediately act to correct any such violation. Unless the Bureau shall have so acted within a reasonable time, not to exceed one year, this Agreement may be terminated by Reclamation."

Is this conditional, limited, and revocable access suggested in the name "National Wildlife Refuge"? I think most people would presume that "National Wildlife Refuge" implies unconditional, perpetual dedication for the primary purpose of protecting wildlife. The Service had no such authorization at Kesterson.

But the Service requires no authorization to use the name "National Wildlife Refuge." Ever since Theodore Roosevelt, the executive branch can designate any federal property a "National Wildlife Refuge". Rep. Richard "Doc" Hastings, R­WA, was quoted in the May 20, 1998 issue of the Bee.

"Federal law lets federal bureaucrats create wildlife refuges at will."

Congress never authorized Kesterson "National Wildlife Refuge", never authorized funding for anything identified as Kesterson "National Wildlife Refuge". The Service bestowed "National Wildlife Refuge" status on Kesterson all by itself, taking funds to manage it from San Luis National Wildlife Refuge.

Bestowing an honorable name upon oneself or one's own property is as absurd as Nixon declaring himself "not a crook". It is something only a crook would do. Bestowing an honorable name on someone else's property, misrepresenting its primary purposes, is just plain deception. A hoax.

Gross images: violated sanctity: outrage: reallocation

In 1983 the Service used photographs of malformed embryos from eggs laid by resident waterfowl that fed on the selenium rich aquatic food chain at Kesterson Reservoir as gross images to horrify an urban public unaware of natural wildlife mortality. The Service and all other journalists writing for EPPA publications used the name "National Wildlife Refuge" at every opportunity rather than some label more appropriate to Kesterson's dedicated primary purposes (e.g., "waste water ponds", "drain water reservoir", "salt water storage", "holding tanks", or "drain-flow bladder").

The Service deceptively implied that the sanctity of a refuge had been violated. That promises for refuge status had been broken. That people should be outraged. And people were.

Ever since, the public outrage over something so ugly being allowed to happen in a "National Wildlife Refuge" has been nursed into political support for reallocation of water and land property based on the "needs" of fish and wildlife. There are people, educated people, who now believe that selenium toxicosis should be not allowed to happen anywhere. As if there are no greater risks to wildlife. As if all risks to humans have been vanquished. As if protecting wildlife individuals is a higher priority than protecting human individuals and the trust we have in each other ‹ documented in contracts detailing property ownership (management authority).

Birds: opportunists

Birds nest opportunistically. The whole world to them is one vast commons. They take risks in picking a nesting opportunity. Contrary to Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt's recent babble about Alaska refuges, there never has been nor ever will be any place on this planet free from risk. Birds compete for the use of all property, not recognizing human ownership or dedicated purpose. We can not save every nest in every kind of dedicated civil infrastructure.

Last year a pair of doves successfully nested on the top rail of a fence between my backyard and my neighbor's. This year they tried again. But I think the nest was discovered by a cat. I had a nesting failure in my back yard.

It might be the opinion of the nearest federal refuge manager that I have violated the Migratory Bird Treaty Act by an unlawful taking of a migratory bird. For mitigation of this "environmental disaster" I should hand over my property to his refuge. Essentially, that would be no different than what happened at Kesterson.

An example of how the Kesterson "ecological disaster" hoax is kept alive is found on page 133 of "Audubon: Natural Priorities" (1994) by Roger DiSilvestro, published by Turner Broadcasting Co.

"Most of the water that fills Kesterson wetlands comes from nearby farms."

"...toxic minerals ... were causing wide spread birth defects among birds nesting in Kesterson, signaling a possible threat to nearby human residents."

"In recent years, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, which runs the refuge, has tried to keep birds out of Kesterson, which ironically was set aside for waterfowl in the first place. The federal Bureau of Reclamation recently agreed to provide refuges with more water from federal reservoirs, offering hope for beleaguered waterfowl."

Waterfowl: beleaguered?

According to Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary:

"Beleaguered ...

1. to besiege; to block up; to surround with an army.

2. to surround, as with denunciations."

The second definition is how I see EPPA lies, when more and more voters pick Libertarian candidates for representative offices.

If waterfowl were beleaguered at Kesterson, it could only have been for a couple of minutes after the first shot in the morning of a hunt day. And not from toxic minerals. Migratory birds migrate, not just long fall and spring flights, but also locally during their winter stay in the Central Valley. According to a 1977 Service report "Concept Plan for Waterfowl Wintering Habitat Preservation, Central Valley California, Priority Category 4", waterfowl wintering in the Grasslands area, which includes Kesterson, manage to fly daily.

"San Luis Reservoir, part of the CVP, is a large impoundment in the Coast Range foothills. The lake supports large flocks of ducks which use the large surface area for a sanctuary."

"San Luis Reservoir has held over one million ducks at one time on shoot days. Most of the ducks using the grasslands for feeding rest on the reservoir and fly out to the club lands after dark."

Migratory birds come and go whenever they please. On shoot days the smart ones leave at daybreak, evading the prospect of being surrounded by hunters. Thousands of birds visited Kesterson during the winter months, flying in and out daily. All except a few hundred migrated north to breed. Those who stayed behind could have left at any time during the months they tried to nest at Kesterson. They were not forced to nest at Kesterson. They were not beleaguered.

Birds: volunteers

The birds that nested unsuccessfully at Kesterson were volunteers. Like tomato plants that sprout in the lawn. Like weeds that sprout anywhere, given the opportunity. They were opportunists. They were taking advantage of whatever opportunity was available. Which is what wildlife do. Which is what EPPAs do. It is our responsibility, if we want to keep confusion at bay, to weed out the voluntary lies.

Service: feigned betrayal

The Service got to manage a fresh water marsh at Kesterson from 1970 to 1980. Then it feigned betrayal when the San Luis Drain and its temporary terminal storage at Kesterson began to be used for the purpose it was built ­ drainage relief for farm fields.

The salinity of the Kesterson Reservoir water rose as the drain water replaced the prior fresh water supply. Some claimed that was a loss of wetlands. But in an area where the extent of wetlands was limited by water supply, as was the case in Grasslands at that time (prior to CVPIA), the amount of wetlands supported by the fresh water that supplied Kesterson would be of equivalent value no matter where the water was delivered. After fresh water was diverted from Kesterson to allow room for drainage water, some other wetlands were supported by the diverted fresh water.

Was the loss of a fresh water marsh and its associated habitat value unforeseen by the Service as may be implied by its alarm over failed waterfowl breeding? No. According to the same document cited above, the Service expected the loss.

"Kesterson NWR will become a regulating reservoir for USBR's San Luis Drain project in the near future. Highly saline subsurface tile drain water will fill Kesterson to a depth of 4 feet. The value of the refuge to waterfowl will be lost. This will increase the importance of the adjacent private wetlands and the need for their preservation."

People were led to believe the sanctity of a "National Wildlife Refuge" had been violated by the Service reaction of alarm over selenium toxicosis. We got our "sentimentality for nature" strings pulled. We were used to stir public hysteria. We were effectively hypnotized into outrage. Now I think itıs time to wake up and be outraged for being taken for fools. But let us not do anything unreasonable. Let us not do anything violent. Let us reduce the sphere of federal government influence so it is less likely to be corrupted by foolish ideas and less likely to cause harm. Let us vote for Libertarians.

Selenium risk: health warnings

Was there a possible threat to nearby human residents? From what? Were they eating the same diet as waterfowl? Were they feeding exclusively on Kesterson area waterfowl? Are humans so wild we can't notice health warnings and make our own diet decisions without depending on government to make everything potentially edible in nature safe to eat (or smoke) in any quantity at any time?

Selenium health warnings for consumption of waterfowl taken from the Grasslands area, Suisun Bay, San Pablo Bay and San Francisco Bay have been included in annually published California hunting regulations for several years. I think if anybody suffered any harm from this risk I would have seen it in the Bee, for weeks on end. I've seen reports of people who have suffered harm from lots of other risks, but not selenium toxicosis. I think the "possible threat" is raised to reinforce fear of a bogus hazard.

Dedication of purpose: property right

The capstone on the tower of Kesterson lies is the insistence that it "...ironically was set aside for waterfowl in the first place". This is the message of the name "National Wildlife Refuge". This is an appeal to honor the dedication of purpose, as if it were a property right. I fully support treating anything remotely resembling a dedication, rule, or promise, made by an appropriate authority, as a property right. The more property rights we have, the more we live in peace. The more we feel safe and happy. But in the case of Kesterson, this appeal to honor a dedication as a property right was for a secondary purpose. The primary purposes were implied to be secondary. The appeal was an equivocation. It was fraud. It was a hoax.

But what if it was "set aside" by an inappropriate authority? In my book, that would be misuse of government property ­ theft. I never saw documentation of an official decision among the federal planners of Kesterson to use San Luis Unit construction authorization to buy land for the purpose of establishing a refuge. But it could have happened. Refuge empire building by the Service seems to have a long tradition. The Service and Reclamation are sister agencies, their projects joined by the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958.

We may never know who exactly intended what. But the Cooperative Agreement contract the Service signed would lead us to believe its authorized access to Kesterson was conditional. Not the primary purpose it led the public to believe when it persisted in calling it a "National Wildlife Refuge".

Incidentally, sometime in or about 1991 the Service withdrew its management from the 1280 acre former reservoir site, removing it from "National Wildlife Refuge" status. If it could withdraw the name in 1991, why didn't it withdraw the name in 1981 when it knew "The value of the refuge to waterfowl will be lost"? I suspect nesting failures in something not a "National Wildlife Refuge", something expected to be sterile, wouldn't be nearly as sensational.

People might ask why anyone should expect birds to nest in a parking lot for a drain water highway. Is there no boundary between nature and civil infrastructure? Why do we live in houses if not to keep nature outside? I suspect a hoax. I suspect it is part of a grand fraud, a vast collection of environmental lies perpetrated by EPPAs crusading against civil infrastructure.

Bribed voters: restoration fund

Populist politicians, grazing a common field of urban votes to win power to inflate statutory law, bribed voters with reallocation of federal property ‹ rights to water supply and drainage relief dedicated for farms to give to fish and wildlife protection. Bribed the voters with a "Restoration Fund" assessed on CVP water and power sales to give to various environmental projects, providing a major funding source for those approved by CalFed ‹ a joint state and federal central planning program. Like CVPIA, it is also subject to NEPA. But it too fails to comply with NEPA's requirement for consideration of world-wide impacts ­ specifically, aggravated clearing of tropical rain forests to replace crop production not grown in the San Joaquin Valley to satisfy EPPA whims.

A couple years ago I heard an objection to my reference to the CVPIA Restoration Fund as a tax. I was astounded. The idea that anyone would think it not a tax just blew my mind. But it confirms how little comprehension some federal bureaucrats have about the cost of living and how taxes increase the cost of living. Just because congress named it a "fund" instead of a "tax" doesn't mean it is not a tax. Name games, like calling a drain tank a "National Wildlife Refuge", are used to deceive. Any congressional act that uses government force to subsidize one sector of human activity taxes another to pay for it.

Section 3407 (c)(2) of CVPIA authorizes collection of $50,000,000 per year from water and power users. Section 3407 (d)(2)(A) directs the collection to be reduced to $35,000,000 per year if certain goals are met. The amounts specified are indexed to October 1992, so they increase as the value of the dollar diminishes with inflation. CVPIA also directs the collection to "be assessed in the same proportion ... as water and power users' respective allocations for repayment of the Central Valley Project." That means the power users pick up most of the bill.

Hydro power: cheap

Who are the power users and where do they get the money to pay for this assessment? Whoever the power users may be, I bet the rates they pay for CVP power are among the cheapest available because CVP power comes from hydro electric generators. Hydro electric generators just sit there and spin as the water flows past. No combustion heat or waste exhaust to dissipate. No mining of coal, oil, or gas and fuel transportation costs. Just construction costs. Cheap power, ready to meet peak demands without the startup and shutdown time required for fueled power plants.

If hydro power generation is so cheap and clean, why does most of our power come from fuel combustion plants? Mostly because demand greatly exceeds potential hydro power supply. Maybe a few more hydro electric dams could be built in the Grand Canyon, but Sierra Club members would have a hissy fit. Of course, if Sierra Club members owned the Grand Canyon they could do with it what they please and wouldn't have to fight off other uses of common federal property.

Tax: beginning or end of energy flow: consumers pay

Increasing the cost of CVP hydro power with a restoration fund assessment does not make CVP power less competitive as long as CVP power remains less than the next cheapest source. As long as CVP power remains cheaper, the assessment is not taken out of power company profits. It is passed on to its customers. Eventually, the assessment is spread to so many municipal and industrial customers it becomes a minor incremental cost of doing business. Businesses pass their increased power costs on to their customers. The increased cost of goods and services caused by the assessment is eventually paid by consumers.

Consumers pay the restoration assessment. Just because the assessment is passed from one business to another doesn't make it any less of an assessment. Whether paid at the source of the energy flow from CVP hydro power or paid at the end of that flow in the final product or service makes no difference to consumers. It is an increase in our cost of living. It is a tax.

There is also an energy flow from farms. Sunlight energy is harvested in the crops. Some crops feed energy to dairy animals which pass on products with some of that energy to consumers. All crops, after transportation, packaging, and marketing eventually carry their solar energy to consumers. Even cotton cloth helps conserve energy required to keep consumers warm and shielded from the hazards of exposure.

Wishful thinking: punitive minds

The draft environmental impact statement for CVPIA opines that CVP farmers will pick up the cost of the restoration fund portion assessed on water use. I think that is wishful thinking by punitive minds. These are the same farms which are villainized for being rich subsidized corporate agribusiness, out-competing smaller farms. The Restoration Fund assessment on CVP water to farms is limited to $6 per acre foot, which is 1.5 percent of the average crop harvest value per acre foot. Not much. Probably won't break many rich corporate agribusiness farms. Might hurt some smaller farms.

Bankrupted small farms can be bought at bargain prices by large farms. Such has been the story of American industrialized agriculture. Fewer farmers per equivalent crop production. Better efficiency. Lower food and fiber prices. Most of us (who are not farmers) win. Small farmers get put out of business by federal CVPIA subsidies for wildlife.

Social injustice: lost critics

Where are the critics of social injustice, like Rep. Miller? Defending waterfowl breeding in winter (non breeding season) hunting grounds and civil infrastructure instead of contracts of human trust. Busting little farms in pursuit of big farms. The wielders of government force to fix social injustice are lost. This is a good time for voters to make a priority check and think about changing to Libertarian representatives.

Environmental tax: robbing the blind

As long as CVP farm production remains less than the next cheapest source, the assessment is not taken out of farm owner profits. It is passed on to crop buyers. Eventually, the assessment is spread to overseas and domestic consumers. So, like the CVP hydro power assessment the restoration fund, the assessment on CVP farm water becomes a minor incremental increase in the cost of living, eventually paid by consumers. It is a tax.

EPPAs tax consumers of CVP water and power while holding the consumers' vision fixed on "environmental disaster" at Kesterson "National Wildlife Refuge." And with those taxes environmental protection projects get perpetual funding. While consumers/voters are entranced by pictures of deformed hatchlings, taxes are surreptitiously collected from our food, fiber, and electric power purchases and spent on projects with out any knowledge of the comparative return on investments. Without any knowledge of diminishing rate of returns. Without any knowledge of adverse impacts.

Taxing the hypnotized is the EPPAs' way of robbing the blind while robbing property owners.

Property reallocation: communism

Neither hypnotized nor blind, San Joaquin Valley farm owners (which I understand included some who thought their farm investment would provide a retirement income) watched a congressional promise made 42 years ago to renew their Central Valley Project (CVP) water supply contracts fade behind environmental protection smoke and mirrors. They watched the San Luis Unit project drainage relief become indefinitely delayed by Rep. Miller's riders on funding authorization.

In our representative "democracy" farm owners are now outvoted and politically powerless to recover their reallocated promises and anticipated drainage relief, former assets to their property. Those whose property value was sacrificed for the benefit of politicians allegedly protecting the "needs" of wildlife must wonder how our country has come to reallocating property on the basis of "need", the grand fraud of communism.

Our federal government sent conscripted young men into combat in Korea and Vietnam, sent supplies to Afghans defending against Soviet aggression, built up a nuclear arsenal with three thousand times the firepower of World War II, and by 1990 raised its debt to three trillion dollars (now 5.5 trillion) in part to finance a half century of cold war against international communism. In 1989 the Soviet Union fell apart as its people turned away from central government planning of everybody's labor and learned to let property owners decide who to hire and what to sell at what price. After trying to make communism work for seventy years, they gave up. And to some extent, so have the people of communist China.

Green communism: biggest deception

I used to think the biggest deception of the century was China's effort to hide the failure of communism by exporting grain to Albania in 1960 while 40 million Chinese starved to death in a government caused famine.

Now I think the biggest deception is the idea that communism was defeated when America thought it won the cold war. It just changed its color from red to green and seduced us into giving up our property rights to government decision­making on all things environmental. We lost our liberty to decide for ourselves. We lost the struggle against communism. The polling booth is our last chance for freedom. We can get free from a communist federal government by voting for Libertarian representatives.

Here in America, communism's myth of an exploited proletariat of workers has been expanded to include fish and wildlife. Now the "needs" of fish and wildlife are determined by government hired ecological priests with the divine wisdom to see how those "needs" can be met with sacrifices from those who thought they could trust the federal government's promised dedicated purpose for designated titles to land and rights to water. Affirmative action for non­human species on federal property gets government subsidies: refuges, parks, wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers. And federal acquisitions of private land continue expanding the federal empire, because central planning priests don't trust private ownership to protect fish and wildlife.

Among private owners, farmers hold rights to the most land and water. And since they are less than three percent of the population, they get outvoted when the urban public decides it knows better how farms should be managed. Communists demonize the largest property owners first, then progressively work down to the smallest homeowner.

(The remainder of this document may be requested by FAX: 916-729-7092)